Cost-Effectiveness of Antifungal Supplementation of Corneal Cold Storage Media.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of supplementing hypothermic cold storage media (CSM) with antifungal therapy. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). PARTICIPANT: Base case of a patient with Fuch's endothelial dystrophy undergoing a first eye keratoplasty. METHODS: Cost-effective analysis of the base case with corneal tissue stored in CSM or CSM supplemented with antifungal therapy over a 16-year time horizon. Multiple clinical scenarios were considered, including endothelial keratoplasty (EK) and penetrating keratoplasty (PK); amphotericin B, voriconazole, caspofungin, and combination therapy; and third-party payer and societal perspectives. The incidences were derived from PubMed literature searches and average wholesale prices of medications; all costs were discounted 3% per annum and adjusted for inflation to 2019 US dollars. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In the reference case, a corneal endothelial graft stored in amphotericin B-supplemented CSM was the most cost-effective approach from a third-party payer and societal perspective. Probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) of the societal model for the EK was robust, with 93.5% being below an arbitrary willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $20 000 per fungal infection averted. Voriconazole, caspofungin, and combination antifungals were less cost-effective than amphotericin B. The main factors influencing the CEA were the incidences of postkeratoplasty fungal infections, potential increases in graft failures, and antifungal costs. For grafts intended for PKs, antifungal supplementation was less cost-effective than for EKs. CONCLUSIONS: Antifungal supplementation with amphotericin B for EK grafts was the most cost-effective approach of the studied antifungals; however, the CEA was sensitive to potential changes in graft failure rates, underlining the importance of long-term safety studies. For full-thickness corneal grafts, antifungal supplementation was less cost-effective.

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus standard DSAEK. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multicentre randomized clinical trial was performed. The time horizon was 12 months postoperatively. Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy were included and randomized to UT-DSAEK (n = 33) or DSAEK (n = 31). Relevant resources from healthcare and societal perspectives were included in the cost analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 questionnaire. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental societal costs per QALY). RESULTS: Societal costs were €9431 (US$11 586) for UT-DSAEK and €9110 (US$11 192) for DSAEK. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.74 in both groups. The ICER indicated inferiority of UT-DSAEK. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 37% to 42%, assuming the maximum acceptable ICER ranged from €2500-€80 000 (US$3071-US$98 280) per QALY. Additional analyses were performed omitting one UT-DSAEK patient who required a regraft [ICER €9057 (US$11 127) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 44-62%] and correcting QALYs for an imbalance in baseline utilities [ICER €23 827 (US$29 271) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 36-59%]. Furthermore, the ICER was €2101 (US$2581) per patient with clinical improvement in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (≥0.2 logMAR) and €3274 (US$4022) per patient with clinical improvement in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 composite score (≥10 points). CONCLUSION: The base case analysis favoured DSAEK, since costs of UT-DSAEK were higher while QALYs were comparable. However, additional analyses revealed no preference for UT-DSAEK or DSAEK. Further cost-effectiveness studies are required to reduce uncertainty.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Descemet's Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty in the United States.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) compared with Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in the United States. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a surgical center in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Binocular adult patient undergoing endothelial keratoplasty. METHODS: A base case of a 70-year-old man undergoing his first endothelial keratoplasty for bilateral Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. The cost-effectiveness of DMEK was compared with DSAEK over a 15-year time horizon. The incidences and costs of complications were derived from PubMed English literature searches, Medicare reimbursements, and average wholesale prices. All costs were discounted 3% per annum and adjusted for inflation to 2018 U.S. dollars. Uncertainty was evaluated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental cost-utility ratios, measured in cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Performing a DMEK instead of a DSAEK generated an extra 0.4 QALYs over a 15-year period. From a societal and third-party payer perspective, DMEK was cost-saving when compared with DSAEK in improving visual acuity in the base case. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with variations in the costs and rebubble rates revealed that DMEK was cost-saving compared with DSAEK in 38% of iterations and was within a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 in 98% of models. CONCLUSIONS: From the societal and third-party payer perspectives in the United States, DMEK generated greater utilities and was less costly than DSAEK. Therefore, DMEK was the dominant procedure and was cost-saving with respect to DSAEK. The economic model was robust based on sensitivity analyses.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Rates of Penetrating or Endothelial Keratoplasty for Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy Among US Medicare Beneficiaries.

IMPORTANCE: Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) is the most common indication for corneal transplant in the United States. The association between race/ethnicity and incidence of advanced FECD, defined by a need for endothelial or penetrating keratoplasty, has not been investigated. OBSERVATIONS: The 2014 US Medicare Limited Data Set (5% sample of 27 163 740 fee-for-service Medicare patients) was analyzed for rate of keratoplasty performed for FECD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition code 371.57), stratified by race/ethnicity. Among all Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older, a diagnosis code for FECD was used in 1.55% (95% CI, 1.51%-1.59%) of white and 1.38% (95% CI, 1.26%-1.50%) of African American beneficiaries who had an ophthalmologist eye examination in 2014 (P = .01). Among beneficiaries who obtained medical care for FECD, keratoplasty was 1.9 times more likely in white than African American patients (4.7%; 95% CI, 4.2%-5.2% vs 2.5%; 95% CI, 1.1%-3.9%; P < .001) among approximately 6500 patients undergoing 8420 procedures. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In 2014, keratoplasty was 1.9 times more likely in US Medicare fee-for-service white patients than African American patients with FECD. This might be caused by racial/ethnic differences in the biology of FECD, access to care, or other unidentified factors.

Cost-effectiveness of Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: Selective endothelial transplantation in the form of Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) is rapidly replacing traditional full-thickness penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for endothelial disease. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine whether the benefits of DSEK are worth the additional costs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients at the Singapore National Eye Center, a tertiary eye center in Singapore, with Fuchs' dystrophy or bullous keratopathy who underwent either PK or DSEK. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent either PK (n = 171) or DSEK (n = 93) from January 2001 through December 2007. Data were collected from inpatient and outpatient notes corresponding to the time immediately before the procedure to up to 3 years after. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Improvements in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity were used to calculate the increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) 3 years after the procedure. This was combined with hospital charges (a proxy for costs) to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing PK with no intervention and DSEK with PK. RESULTS: Three-year charges for DSEK and PK were $7476 and $7236, respectively. The regression-adjusted improvement in visual acuity for PK relative to no intervention was -0.613 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units (P<0.001), and for DSEK relative to PK, it was -0.199 logMAR units (P = 0.045). The regression-adjusted marginal gain in utility for PK relative to no intervention was 0.128 QALYs (P<0.001) and for DSEK relative to PK was 0.046 QALYs (P = 0.031). This resulted in ICERs of $56 409 per QALY for PK relative to no intervention and $5209 per QALY for the more expensive DSEK relative to PK. CONCLUSIONS: If the goal is to maximize societal health gains given fixed resources, DSEK should be the preferred strategy. For a fixed budget, it is possible to achieve greater QALY gains by providing DSEK to as many patients as possible (and nothing to others), rather than providing PK.